This theme of humility was reinforced with the musical selection that followed: The choir sang the old Shaker hymn "Simple Gifts"...

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd....

219 comments:

Humility would have involved less O time on the tube, a shorter speech, less cheering and adulation and someone else announcing that the lady opened her eyes for the first time right after Obama visited her.

I liked this. It's the first decent thing Obama has said or done. The emphasis was on the other people, and on God, and on how we should all strive to live more decent lives. I am afraid that I am beginning to like Obama. He did this perfectly. Good for him.

In response to David's comment on the previous thread, I thought Obama's eulogy may have been the best speech he has ever made. Certainly the best I have heard (although I usually don't listen when he talks).

Despite all the potential for turning this into a political rally (Napolitano, Holder, partisan stacking of the audience), the event was stirring, uplifting. We here in Tucson have been hurting badly since Saturday, we needed something like this, and I am very thankful it happened.

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior

I Timothy 2:1-3

And when Paul wrote that the government of Rome was really corrupt.

So - When the President does something I believe is good and right, I support him in doing good and right things

The Dems were using a Good Cop/Bad Cop game. Obama did an excellent Good Cop tonight. He sent the message that if the Tea Party/GOP will surcome, then the Good Cop will be kind to them,but if not, then the dogs of slander war will be loosed again by the Government Owned Media. That was a good recovery for the Dems. Point Obama who made that move well. He went from a line of "known blame of Limbaugh-Palin-Beck" to a line of "We will never know who is to blame". That was an escape from a trap the Dems were in for having a monster that turned out to be apolitical. Point Obama. Stay tuned.

What is wrong with his announcement that she opened her eyes? First of all, that's great news, and second, if she did it while he was there that would be a very uplifting and exciting moment that he should announce to everyone.

And Lincolntf: There will be plenty of time for him to run for re-election. Tonight was not about electoral politics. Can't you put that aside for one night, because he did. Jan Brewer got applause from the very same people who applauded Obama, so obviously Arizona is putting partisan politics aside for the evening.

A number of people have said the cheering and all didn't feel much like a memorial, and that was the impression I got.

If Obama was interested in healing, he might have gotten a half hour on TV Saturday or Sunday and told everybody to cool it with the invective. Then, it might have meant a bit more. Now, with all the Lefty haters driven into retreat by the facts and their own conduct, it's a bit of an anticlimax.

We'll see how this plays out.

1jpb said...

"announcing that the lady opened her eyes for the first time right after Obama visited her"

What's wrong with this.

Maybe because it sounds as if The Messiah hath wrought another miracle.

I didn't listen or watch, I only read the text, so perhaps that's why I missed the campaign-rally atmosphere some others are describing. But from reading the speech, I fully agree with Chase -- finally, the man seems to understand what it means to be the President of the United States.

It was a damn fine speech, and Obama carried himself as a president should. First time I actually thought of him as presidential.

On the other hand - Maybe I'm old fashioned, but cheering at memorial services is really, really tacky. You just don't act like that. The crowd did Obama a huge disservice by not behaving as such an occasion demands. You could see Obama had this WTF expression at how the crowd was acting.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I didn't hear the speech, but the transcript doesn't read well, and was so full of meaningless air-pudding rhetoric that I can't imagine it sounded all that great. "Let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations" WTF?

I thought it was a good speech. It was tough to delivery in front of a predominantly college student audience in a fairly liberal city. I appreciate his exhortation for us to hold up to the ideals of an optimistice 9 year girl newly excited about political service

Again being on a college campus created a problematic atmosphere. FWIW Krauthammer on Fox highly praised the speech.

I told my wife I thought they missed an opportunity by not having a rabbi there; after all, Gabby is Jewish.

The reaction so far, for the most part, seems to be that the speech was okay/good. A few people don't like it, but they seem to be in the minority.

The main complaint, and what may overshadow the speech in many minds, is the campaign rally atmosphere complete with t-shirts and cheering. Whoever thought a college campus was a good idea for a memorial venue is an idiot.

Every time I clicked over, it was to hear cheering, as at a pep rally. So I didn't see much of the speech.

But I did read the text. And that was all the more reason NOT to watch it.

I really had no desire to listen to Obama give a finger-wagging lecture, which the text clearly was. In his use of "we," what the mouth-foaming libs of the last week will hear is "you conservatives." If he truly wanted to improve the national discourse, what he should have said is "I'M SORRY." Rather than use this accusatory "we," by which no Dem will include himself, if he wanted reconciliation, he should have lowered that upturned nose of his and specifically stated that it was wrong to smear and slander and accuse his political opponents of causing this.

Rather than use this accusatory "we," by which no Dem will include himself, if he wanted reconciliation, he should have lowered that upturned nose of his and specifically stated that it was wrong to smear and slander and accuse his political opponents of causing this.

And when was President Obama guilty of doing that? (Chapter and verse, please.)

Everytime I try to listen to Obama's speeches my mind just wanders off. Nothing he says ever sticks with me, so I have to go back and read the remarks. When I do, I can never understand why he has this golden orator reputation. As David notes above with the Gettysburg Address, those words are so much more powerful, and do stick with you. There is almost a divine hand in the formulation.

I was appalled at the pep-rally atmosphere of this memorial. Perhaps I had the wrong expectation of what it was going to be. That inappropriateness of all the cheers and hollering is what will stick with me for this one.

Maybe it was the purpose-designed logo at the funeral - supplied by the White House.

Maybe it was the souvenir T-shirts - are they available at CafePress?

Tchotche sales at a national tragedy don't seem exactly Reagan-esque. They seem Democrat-esque ... Wellstone-esque ... but then again Chase is nothing more than a Democrat Party employee who created a new Blogger profile tonight to help Barack Obama spin the deaths of a bunch of innocent people to help him boost his electoral prospects.

9-year-old Christine Green is spinning in her grave at the site of these Democrats descending like vultures over the dead bodies to collect political points.

I tuned in early to see if you would live-blog the event (mostly just to see if you would comment on the teleprompter tennis-match) but I soon realized that you would not mock this on account of the solemnity of the occasion.For my part, I watched the pagan beginning and then watched something else for a while. I tuned back in a bit later to see if any republicans would show up, and if they did (because I'm crass and still full of vitriol and partisanship) I wondered if would they be booed?I fell asleep before Obama showed up. I'll have to read about it here.

I guess if you choose to spin everything in a political light, that's up to you. I didn't see it as political. If it were, what would Jan Brewer have been doing sharing the stage with (and being applauded by the same people) as Obama?

As for t-shirt giveaways, I didn't hear about that but I don't know that you can stop people from hawking whatever they want in the back and outside. Nobody at he front said anything about t-shirt giveaways.

Agree with rhardin 100%. I freely admit the antipathy I've developed toward Obama over his speech & behavior in the past 2 years biases my reaction here. I'm sorry, but tonight I guess I am unable to rise magnanimously above my petty "partisanship" (unlike, it seems, most of you here).

Maybe I'd feel a tad more charitable if Obama's political need for an "Oklahoma City Moment" hadn't been telegraphed to us (by his own advocates in the MSM) for weeks now (long before an "opportunity" arose-- sorry, I mean, this horrible tragedy occurred). I'm sure a lot of strategic calculation over the past few days (with a close eye on the developing narrative in the MSM & reaction/ backlash from the country at large) went into crafting the content, message, and tone of this speech. Kudos, Obama! Tonight, you're a nation's hero and have proven to us all you're a good & moral & honorable man, for ably taking advantage of a tragedy (in the aftermath of which those on your side acted like scum) to stage a political rally, act "presidential" (i.e. he miraculously refrained from insulting his political opponents, for a change: what a rhetorical achievement!), give "good speech" (though I share rhardin's estimation), and receive the adulation due to you. Woohoo! You're so awesome, unlike that witch Palin, who of course made it all about her.

Beyond that, his words, and particularly his focus on nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green’s appreciation for America, were laudable and affecting. It is now only left to his base to be sane, respectful, and honest. - Abe Greenwald

That’s the challenge now for Obama. The dems and their base need to take this seriously. How wonderful if they do! But the leftwing base is unhappy and likely to become more and more unhappy in the next two years. How will Obama inspire them “to strive to be better”?

I can't imagine ever voting for Obama, but I thought he gave a great speech. It's important to praise when appropriate and Obama deserves it today. No doubt he'll stuff up soon enough and we can criticise him for that.

If a person only criticises, it demonstrates that he or she has stopped listening.

Um, no. I will not be listening to one another more carefully and I will not be introspective and having a dose of humility. Because while I'm doing that you'll be formulating your next line of attack. Sorry. No more chances. Homey don't play dat. Take your own advice and I'll have mine, Mr Community Organizer, Mr. Get in their faces, Punch back twice as hard, They bring a knife we bring a gun. Your words, not mine. Own 'em.

I wouldn't know if it was a good speech or a bad one. I stopped listening three years ago.

Wanna hear something a little bit funny? Okay, goes like this: Apparently my whispers are not so whispery as I thought. Sunday was the last day for the Tutankhamun exhibition so I took Karen and her son to go through it. At the third gallery the visitor is faced with a monolithic statue of a figure some 25 or so feet tall elevated as if the legs were still intact. Karen asked, "Who is that?" I said, "Amenhotep IV" Karen goes, "Yeah, but who was he?" I said, "Tut's father. Changed his name to Ankhenaten. Changed the capital to a brand new city. Changed the art. Changed the religion of the whole nation. Some think him a genius, others think him a dumkopf, Worshiped a single god. Strangled all the other priesthoods, thus ruined the entire economy. Disrupted the Maat. Threw gold off the viewing platform. Devalued the national awards by awarding his friends with gold instead of awarding achievement. Pursued a single obsession. Shrank the empire due to non-interest. Enemies banged at the borders." Then I cupped my mouth and lowered my voice to lip-reading volume and whispered as quietly as possible directly into Karen's ear,"He was the Obama of his day." It was a crowd, but a quiet crowd. A man standing nearby Howled with laughter, breaking the spell of the gallery. He wasn't supposed to hear that.

Do you think that Krugman will hear it that way? Or do you think (more likely) that he will feel vindicated and believe that Obama was talking about those on the right and say "yeah Rush Limbaugh, yeah Sean Hannity, yeah Sarah Palin, quit being so obnoxious and hateful"?

If you go back and watch the tape at CSPAN Obama emphasised what we been saying all along...

And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy,(Obama then emphasised) It did not..

Most of the left softened the ground by making fools of themselves. He then made good use of the opportunity to rise above a very very low bar they set for him.

This does not change the fact that so many dug so deep, and I hope that has the legs it should. This episode once again has shown that the left and right in this country are not on the same level of decency, honesty or respect for our liberties. It's just an obvious fact that continues to be proven with every challenge we face.

If a person only criticizes, it demonstrates he has stopped listening.

I readily admit I have stopped listening to Obama.

I agree with the commenter who wrote Why does Obama feel the need to inject himself into the situation....that was my thought too. This was not a political crisis. A mentally disturbed man shot some people in Arizona. These things happen seemingly fairly regularly around the country. Remmber when the black man when on a shooting rampage a couple months ago when he got caught stealing beer at his workplace and was fired, and then justified it by saying his employer was a racist? Did Obama fly out there to make a speech at the memorial service for the people that man killed? Nope. So why now?

I can imagine his speechwriters huddling over the best angle to take - "I think he needs to go real humble, real magnanimous, real 'e pluribus unum' with this one." "Yeah I agree...let's have him talk about how we all need to get beyond partisanship. Might help him some with the Independents who are still angry about Obamacare."

And then the schmaltz about how the woman opened her eyes for the first time right after he visited her...gawd. The man has no shame. He truly is an egomaniac. I don't think he would even perceive how his continually making everything about himself is repulsive.

"I wonder what the Muslim terrorists would think about that weird blessing? Maybe they'd be so befuddled that they'd ignore it and move on the the Christians and the Jews."

I don't think you get the situation. The psychopath who murdered a politician was one of the terrorists. Or at least a sympathizer. He murdered the politician (that he was supposed to be guarding) because he didn't like his stance on a blasphemy law. Get it? He made himself the judge, jury and executioner and killed the guy he was tasked with protecting. And he's getting praised for it by way too many putatively normal people in Pakistan. When lawyers are cheering a man for murdering a government official because he disagreed with that official's political stance on a law, or to be more honest about it, his interpretation of Islam, then you have to worry about the whole future of that society and the nuclear weapons they possess.

"At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

So what does this have to do with a nutcase loony killing and wounding a bunch of people, only one of whom he knew? And how come Barry didn't think this way when he stuck his nose in Arizona's attempt to control the invasion by illegal aliens?

Florida: there are a few times in our lives when we are expected to be gracious, such as weddings and funerals. In this instance, a terrible, terrible tragedy happened and the funeral helps people get over the shock and horror of it all.

In this instance, Obama gave a non-political speech which spoke about the victims and the need for partisan fighters on both sides to go fight somewhere else.

I am amused that you know absolutely nothing about me, but feel the need to criticise me because I did not criticise Obama. If blind hatred is required to win your approval, I'll pass on the opportunity. If I have any responsibility at all, it is to behave with respect toward the people attending a funeral. I suggest that you find a different thread to pick a fight with someone. It's unbecoming here.

No, he just blew them off. He didn't criticize them, but he dismissed them out of hand and changed the subject.

Although an uncharitable reading of the speech does leave room for thinking rhetoric played a part in the shooting -- he said it wasn't a *simple* lack of civility. You could, I guess, spin that to mean "it was a lack of civility plus other factors". The rest of the speech doesn't fit with that reading though.

They were all created tonight, specifically to say the same spin (in so many words): "I wouldn't vote for Obama, but he hit a home run with this speech."

I said that. I said it here first. I meant it.

And - unlike you - I have commented here since Ann began this blog in 2004.

I feel sorry for your family and the people who you think are friends. They have to endure a bitter and irrational you. I will pray that someone in your life wakes you up one day - there's more to life than trolling. Or hating one's political opponents.

Maybe it was the purpose-designed logo at the funeral - supplied by the White House.

And coordinated on Pelosi's web page.

“Tonight the University of Arizona community joins with Tucson, the state of Arizona, and indeed the entire nation to acknowledge together Saturday’s tragedy. Appropriately, this remembrance is called ‘Together we thrive: Tucson and America.’ ‘Together we thrive: Tucson and America’ will be an opportunity to grieve, and it will be a demonstration of our strength, a strength in community—a strength in community that was demonstrated last Saturday, a strength in community there that is ongoing."

If Obama had called off his Democrat and LSM lapdogs and prevented them from wallowing in a blood libel since this terrible shooting, his words would've had more credibility. As it is, after Palin's vid today, all Obama could do was tell his dogs they failed to drum her out. Imagine, the president who called the Eagles about Michael Vick never asked Democrats to stop, never asked his media lapdogs to stop lying. Now that the polls say epic fail, he's yapping about not pointing fingers even as he uses Dupkin's term "vitriol." Nice going, schmuck.

"What we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another... pointing fingers or assigning blame... " -Barack Obama.

But, Meade, he remained silent while his party and their sycophantic media did, and he himself congratulated the sheriff on how he handled things. These words reek of sheer plain unvarnished hypocrisy.

As I wrote on another blog, which was dismayed over the pep rally nature of the event, "those who have been most guilty of the mouth-foaming bile of the last several days will take Obama’s “we” to mean, not themselves, but their political opponents. That is, they will simply use it as a weapon against them."

And sure enough, the New York Times, just to name one which has engaged in the most disgusting of demonization, uses Obama’s speech to bash Sarah Palin, as does the NYT's Gail Collins, who uses Obama's call for greater civility to slime Palin, Republicans, the NRA.

If Obama had called off his Democrat and LSM lapdogs and prevented them from wallowing in a blood libel since this terrible shooting, his words would've had more credibility.

Just for the sake of civilized argument ...

Surely you can recall a case in which, during an election campaign, a pro-Republican PAC runs a commercial that the Democrats find highly objectionable, if not inflammatory. So the Democrats call upon the GOP candidate to "do the right thing" and either renounce the commercial, or order the PAC (which is supposed to be an independent entity) to withdraw the commercial.

And if the Republican says, "I can't do that, they don't work for me, and besides, everyone's entitled to their opinion," isn't this Republican being guilty of the same thing you're accusing President Obama of?

I watched the smiling, backslapping goombah friends of the sheriff mill about before the ceremony. I heard the cheers for Obama as he walked in. Obama could have shut that down but he didn't. And Nancy Pelosi could have told the folks seeking a picture pose with her to stuff it. But she can't. God, the whole event made me ashamed of my country. Americans have no class. These politicians are craven. The Democrats can't hire one point man to tell attendees that this is to be a solemn occasion? Not a networking party? I don't care what Obama says if he can't do basic crowd control that any stage performer knows. Ugghh....

At least we don't have to be drenched in 'You caused it by being mean' a la Krugman. I liked the line 'You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless.' In a discussion of a case of PTSD, it was noted that the cop with the illness blamed himself for the death of his partner. A reconstruction of events indicated that there was nothing he could have done and the guilt was then thought psychologically to be preferable to the feeling of lack of control. Maybe the liberal commentariat has been feeling a loss of control and this incident just leads to their favorite generic recommendations: conservatives STFU or gun control.

"isn't this Republican being guilty of the same thing you're accusing President Obama of?"

No, he's not. Part of being president is to offer moral leadership. Plus, he's a paid government official. It's not the same job and doesn't have the same responsibilities as being a candidate does.

That's actually been one of Obama's problems over the last two years in my opinion. He never seemed to grasp that being president, and being presidential, is different than being a candidate. I didn't hear the speech tonight but I'm encouraged by reports that perhaps he has finally begun to grasp that fundamental difference.

Jesus, Bender, that NYT editorial is-- I cannot find the words. I'm too tired to try to my convey my disgust & incredulity. By now I shouldn't be surprised... and yet I can't help being shocked, every time. Unbelievable.

The president’s words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.

This, this is what we get from the NYT after the President's speech tonight. I'm so drained by the waves of disgust & indignation I've felt in the last few days-- and now this-- that my outrage has just become a kind of nauseous numbness.

Sure would. He'd grab the nearest stranger, strip him of his shirt and give it to the naked dude. That, or pass a law making the police come and grab the shirt.

As for the speech - it was good, but a little long. The thump thump of the wheels over the invokers of the blood libel was nice, but instead of just scolding the people who engage in heated political rhetoric (as if that made any difference in the mind of this paranoid schizo)he should have mentioned that he himself has engaged in such rhetoric (because he sure as hell has), apologized, and promised to try to do better.

Humility city - I don't think he'd ever go there. Besides, apologizing is something that only Republicans are supposed to do. Particularly if they're not guilty of whatever it is they're supposed to apologize for.

An openly partisan web site frantically labels a run-of-the-mill campaign statement as "false" -- and so ineptly, at that, that the reporting newspaper cited couldn't even repeat said accusation sans the patent fig leaf of exculpatory quotation marks -- doesn't even come within ICBM detonation range of libeling an innocent bystander of being somehow responsible (whether in greater part or lesser) for mass murder.

An openly partisan web site frantically labels a run-of-the-mill campaign statement as "false" -- and so ineptly, at that, that the reporting newspaper cited couldn't even repeat said accusation sans the patent fig leaf of exculpatory quotation marks -- doesn't even come within ICBM detonation range of libeling an innocent bystander of being somehow responsible (whether in greater part or lesser) for mass murder.

My feeble point being, are the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties personally and ultimately responsible for anything and everything a Republican or Democrat says? (I take you feel this is a "special case" demanding special action by the president.)

Oh yes, the much better example I should have thought of earlier: Remember the "Willie Horton" ad that bedeviled Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988? Was then-Vice President George H.W. Bush wrong to invoke Horton? Should he have denounced the ads and thrown Lee Atwater under the proverbial political bus?

(I take you feel this is a "special case" demanding special action by the president.)

The noisome machinery of an entire political party -- lubricated and fueled by said party's slaveringly eager handmaidens in the MSM -- laboring, non-stop, for the greater portion of a full week to libel an innocent U.S. citizen as being somehow responsible (it's all so murky, really) for six cold-blooded murders, and as many again attempts at same, would almost certainly fit any sane and rational individual's definition of something "demanding special action by the President," yes.

If it was important and "special" enough for him to make such a nakedly self-aggrandizing speech ("SHE OPENED HER EYES AT THE SOUND OF MY VOICE! HALLELUJAH!!!") in the first place -- and, evidently, the left as a whole devoutly believes that to be the case -- then: it was important and "special" enough for him to stop playing the Partisan Preacher for five frickin' minutes, and to show just that much simple, human decency to the victim of his trained attack dogs.

... and Trooper's already let the air out of that weary, long-discredited "Horton" meme, I notice.

Before the speech was made, a poll was out indicating that 53% of Americans believed the liberals were just trying to make the conservatives look bad. A third of the poll respondents thought the nasty rhetoric had some impact. Doesn't it sound to you as though Liberals have lost more of the center with their accusatory rhetoric?

It was a pitch in his wheelhouse. Of course, he delivered a good speech. That's his great skill. But give him credit because he said nothing vindictive or mean spirited. I saw it in a restaurant. The women present got all teary eyed and red nosed when he started talking about that little girl puddle jumping in heaven.......The audience response was not what you usually see in a memorial service. When the opening speaker started pointing magic feathers to the eastern door and going all Carlos Castenada, I feared for the worse. You don't want a Chuckles The Clown moment at a memorial for a little girl. But the service didn't slop over, and the President gave a dignified, humane address.

Today I saw an interview with the brain trauma specialist that is attending her. He said they have her in a drug induced coma and would be days before they could risk waking her to assess brain function and damage. So I was a little surprised when Obama said she opened her eyes. I'm sure her family is very relieved that she is making such progress.

A few years ago I worked with a young guy who had a horrific brain injury, a steel pipe flew off a truck on the freeway and impaled him. It took several years but he regained most functions 100%, he lost his left eye and some dexterity and grip with his right hand, but he retained his intellect and personality. They know so much more about treating brain injury nowadays that Giffords probably has the best chance one could have.

Let's not forget there are also other victims of the shooting in critical condition. They need our prayers and support as well.

I didn;t watch it. Inadvertently flipped by it looking for SOMETHING else to watch.

But reading the comments -- were there any Republicans besides Brewer there? All I see mentioned is Obama, Napolitano (sp?), Pelosi, Holder (? <--- maybe Dubnik is getting tutored?) It sounds like it was a Dem Fest.

Nothing in the Horton ad was untrue. Dukakis was soft on crime, and two people paid dearly for it.

The cheering put me off, too, but even worse, it looked like Obama picked up the Clinton wiggle, which I despised even more than the Obama's usual tennis match. Won't someone please tell him to pull his nose out of the air, or does he have to use bifocal contacts?

But seriously, I take your point that Obama poses as much a threat to the rule of law as Nixon did. And your other point that there is probably some objectionable act which has been done at some time in the past 150 years by a Republican but not by Obama.

I'm glad the crowd was vocal. People needed cheering up, and if that helps, so be it.

My impression was that for the first time tonight Obama actually looked like he deserved to have that seal on the podium as he spoke. I was impressed, and he gave a great speech. Of course I am sure that tomorrow he will go right back to being the douche that he has been for most of his time in office thus far.

Palin also had a very good speech, but she looked terrible when she delivered it. She looked pale and gaunt like she was unwell. I understand that she has had a lot of death threats. I hope she takes some time out for a breather before she gets back into things.

"+1 for Chase et al. who give Obama the props he is due for doing the right thing.

Not going to comment on the rest of the snark. When anyone does the right thing, he or she should be acknowledged.

It was a good thing for Obama and a good thing for America.

The loss, the tragedy is still awful, but the commitment to moving forward was good."

And 95% of life is simply 'showing up'...so OK, I give 'The Won' a gold star for last nite.

It would have been a real 'home run' had he offered a mea culpa for all of the violent rhetoric that has escaped from his pie hole. Of course, with that not possible, he wasn't about to throw anyone else under the bus, either.

The first thing I thought of as the Messiah began was the crass Wellstone memorial (which got a mention here about halfway up) and how it turned into a political rally. Major turn-off right from the git-go.

The second thing that occurred to me, and I said this to the spouse unit, was "He missed a Gettysburg address opportunity (which also got a mention above)." Lawdy, didn't he ramble?

I had seen a small part of Palin's video earlier, and it struck me as much more presidential in tone and substance than the real president's wanderings. If O'Bama wanted to make this about civility in discourse (which would have been off the mark to begin with), he could have done it from the Oval Office without the disgusting grandstanding; or he could incorporate it into his upcoming State of the Union, which Prez's have often used to invite individuals and remark about their uniquely American contributions to our national story.

Overall, I was disgusted by the event. I thought the choir doing Simple Gifts was effective, though. The organizers get points for that.

I didn't watch. But I was walking my dog last night, and ran across a neighbor, also walking his dog, and he thought it was a home run, on par with the Gettysburg Address. My thought as I walked home after our encounter: Obama made a speech that short?

I'm glad to see that most of the commenters here think Obama did the right thing. The lefty trolls of course don't change their behavior. I am disappointed with those commenters who aren't giving the President any credit at all. He said what needed to be said to put this behind us. He didn't say everything I would've liked him to say, but in that speech he worked hard to be the President of all of us as he promised he would be.

Those of you who said he needed to "apologize" for things other people said and did--that's what the Left was doing to you all week.

It was a good speech, but it would have been better if Barry had issued this call for civility as soon as the left started making this all the fault of Palin and the right. Of course he didn't because he was sitting there seeing if it would stick and when it didn't he had to say something.

And even if he meant it, and I hope he did, the media is still attacking her, making it all about her, and pretty much ignoring Barry.

You were expected to apologize for or disavow your "rhetoric" "inflaming" a mass murderer. Every single lefty troll who posted here this week made some variation on that theme. "You" was not limited to Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle, it was extended to the rank and file of conservatives and Tea Party.

Obama is not the one who made remarks like that, and he doesn't have to apologize for things other people said and did. He did explicitly disavow them, and I think that should be enough.

Justice Anthony Kennedy who oversees the Ninth Circuit and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were seated in the front row next to the 20 year old University of Arizona hero intern, the Obama's, the Congrsswoman's astronaut husband, and Janet Napolitano. The Supreme Court Justices' presence was a great way to honor he fallen Judge Roll.

We can all think of times in our lives when doing the right things cost us dearly. But sometimes doing the right thing can benefit you. Unlike some us here, I am not gifted with the ability to see into the President's soul and know that he did the right thing out of political calculation, or if he did it because it was right. All I can see is that he did the right thing. I'm glad he did. This has been an ugly week, and Obama has helped to put an end to it. Imagine how much longer this could have gone on if he had chosen to gin up the rage.

Shame on each and every willing gull here, so desperately credulous as to gawp and gulp frantically at yet another Messianic, self-adoring Obama whopper, sans even so much as a moment's deliberation. ("SHE OPENED HER EYES AT THE SOUND OF MY VOICE! HALLELUJAH!!!")

"Obama is not the one who made remarks like that"It was not trolls but leaders of his own party who did do that. Indeed, "Politico.com quoted one veteran Democratic operative saying that the Obama White House should use the tragedy to score political points. "They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," he said." "

He did implicitly disavow this method, but not until it was quite clear the political tactic to make this 'his OK bombing' (cf Chris Matthews) had -mostly-failed.

"I think that should be enough."Well, it ain't. I gave him two cheers. He did good for the people in attendance. Minus one for being late to intervene on the blood libel, which I find disgusting.

The third thing that occurred to me that I meant to mention above, was a comparison to his other most odious event, his rambling speech at West Point about the Afghan plan.

In that one, he spent 30 minutes buttering up the troops with platitudes, high praise for the best and brightest and most courageous and most noble; and the last 10 minutes selling them out if they can't get the job done in 18 months. It was exploitative and insincere.

Likewise last night, he did well in recognizing the heroic efforts of average citizens thrust into extraordinary circumstances; and then tainted their accomplishment by even linking the entire episode to the civility of political discourse, when it so clearly shouldn't be. In other words, by even acknowledging the current debate, he gives it legs while acting like he's trying to repudiate it. Exploitation again, most transparently.

Turned on the TV to see if O'Reilly had anyone interesting on, and saw right away it was the memorial service.

Turned it off.

What's the point?

A lot of people will say "the right thing" and then tomorrow the left will resume their attack on Palin, conservatives, talk radio, the second amendment et al. The President will say nothing to stop them or criticise them.

Obama will give a nice speech, then he'll wake up today and continue to push his leftist agenda. He continues to be my political enemy; I don't care if he gives "good speech."

I agree, and they themselves need to be held responsible for what they themselves did.

You don't know why Obama stayed out of it. It may have been calculation, or it may be that he didn't agree, or some other reason.

Minus one for being late to intervene on the blood libel, which I find disgusting.

He was a lot quicker on the Cambridge cop and Kanye West, I agree, but there are big differences in this case, since people died. Maybe he took the time to get it right. Again, I can't see into his heart. Maybe you have that power, but I don't.

Just a friendly reminder: Obama didn't cut his political teeth attending a southern seminary, but in down-and-filthy-dirty Chicago. In bankrupt, corrupt Chicago - the home of community organizers /slash/ and a street-corner jive turkey.

As President and (one would hope) leader of his own party, he has many levers to pull by which to send messages.

If he was so inclined, he could have quickly:1) told the NYTimes to STFU.2) told the DNC to STFU.3) gone on TV to quell the blood libel charge specifically, (not the implicit statement of his memorial speech), and quiet the storm.

"Again, I can't see into his heart. "Nor can I. The man has hundreds of people smarter than me working for him. He got where he his by having political skills, knowing when to do things.

But he did nothing.

He said nothing.

One has to wonder why he did not intervene. I can only conclude that (a) it was a calculated political decision, to watch and see if the blood libel worked, or (b) he's incompetent.

it was a calculated political decision, to watch and see if the blood libel

Oh, and just in case anyone was thinking about whinnying, re: Pogo's use of the term "blood libel" here:

"A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews." (Andrew Sullivan)

"“The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.” (Frank Rich)

It's a little strange to find myself in the "disappointing" minority-- who find no reason whatsoever to lavish Obama with fulsome praise (heaped on him by most conservative commentators in the MSM, mawkishly & extravagantly), for such a platitudinous, tactical, convenient, expedient speech. Tom Maguire @ JustOneMinute & Jeff @ Protein Wisdom best express my views on it.

It's vintage O rhetoric (harking back to the empyrean tone of the campaign-- which, of course, proved to be a crock of shit). Transcending the "vitriol" & petty partisanship of us lesser mortals (while his accomplices in the MSM do all the dirty work-- do we not remember his campaign's MO?) My reaction to the speech this morning (even more than last night) is sooooooo cynical. The fact that the NYT, in that mind-boggling editorial, could draw the lessons it did from the speech (after what the NYT has printed in the past week), to me says it all.

Obama gave a good speech, that is what he does. So far that is the only good thing he does.

He is still jamming socialist ObamaCare down our throats, still blocking oil drilling, still blocking nuclear power, still putting the coal industry out of business, still putting this nation $Trillions of dollar in debt, still running the Dept. of Justice on a racial basis and on and on....

Despite the un-memorial-like carnival atmosphere, I thought the President did a solid job of doing just what he's best at: giving a high-minded, though too long, come-together speech. And I applaud his avoidance of politics and call for understanding. (Which I realize, may have been a political calculation. Still.)

But as I remarked last night, the proof will come in the days to follow and the EVENTS to follow. Will he live by his own exhortations? Or was it all just so much sophistry, doomed to fall by the wayside at the first politically advantageous situation? I hope he meant it.

The responses seem to be an example of hearing what you want. Obama doesn't want us to use this as an excuse to turn on one another. Left unsaid is that he and his allies are already completely against Americans who disagree with his vision of the future, hence his referring to them as "enemies". He doesn't need to use this tragedy to turn on his opponents, he's lived in that circumstance his entire adult life. All he is asking is for people not to fight back.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't see him or his allies doing anything to mitigate their animosity. His allies have already used this to turn on conservatives and his blase comments provide them cover by pretending it comes from both sides.

I also agree with the comments that found the speech empty, although I find this related to politicians rather than Obbama specifically. If you need a politician's speech to reconcile you to terrible events I think you're missing someone in your life. He isn't a pope or a king, he's a president.

Starting today, we'll know how much Obama took his own words to heart. Will he continue to advocate racial enmity, continue to encourage rage among his followers and continue to smear America as a closed, violent society? We shall see.

Thought the speech was good and not divisive; a long perhaps, but thats a small nitick--I thought the carnival atmosphere not very conducive to a memorial service and tee shirts were in remarkable bad taste.

AL, I assume you took the president's message and folded your tent on your baseless accusations. As Kent says, you have provided no proof for your wild, oft-repeated claims. An apology would be nice if you were man enough to give one. If not, your lack of response will still serve to reveal your character.